Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:13:35.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capitalism, Jacobinism and International Relations: Re-interpreting the Ottoman path to modernity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2017

Eren Duzgun
Eren Duzgun*
Affiliation:
University of Kyrenia, North Cyprus
*
*Correspondence to: Eren Duzgun, Department of International Relations, University of Kyrenia, Girne/Kyrenia, 99320, North Cyprus, via Mersin 10, Turkey. Author’s email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Debates over ‘modernity’ have been central to the development of historical-sociological approaches to International Relations (IR). Within the bourgeoning subfield of International Historical Sociology (IHS), much work has been done to formulate a historically dynamic conception of international relations, which is then used to undermine unilinear conceptions of global modernity. Nevertheless, this article argues that IHS has not proceeded far enough in successfully remedying the problem of unilinearism. The problem remains that historical narratives, informed by IHS, tend to transhistoricise capitalism, which, in turn, obscures the generative nature of international relations, as well as the fundamental heterogeneity of diverging paths to modernity both within and beyond western Europe. Based on the theory of Uneven and Combined Development, Political Marxism, and Robbie Shilliam’s discussion of ‘Jacobinism’, this article first reinterprets the radical multilinearity of modernity within western Europe, and then utilises this reinterpretation to provide a new reading of the Ottoman path to modernity (1839–1918). Such a historical critique and reconstruction will highlight the significance of Jacobinism for a more accurate theorisation of the origin and development of the modern international order, hence contributing to a deeper understanding of the international relations of modernity.

Keywords

International Relations TheoryModernityInternational SystemHistorical SociologyUneven and Combined DevelopmentMarxismCapitalismJacobinismThe Ottoman Empire
Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 252 - 278
Copyright
© British International Studies Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Anievas, Alexander and Nisancioglu, Kerem, How The West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism (London: Pluto, 2015)Google Scholar; Bhambra, Gurminder, ‘Historical sociology, international relations and connected histories’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23:1 (2010), pp. 127–143 Google Scholar; Dufour, Frédérick Guillaume, ‘Social-property regimes and the uneven and combined development of nationalist practices’, European Journal of International Relations, 13:4 (2007), pp. 583–604 Google Scholar; Green, Jeremy, ‘Uneven and combined development and the Anglo-German prelude to World War I’, European Journal of International Relations, 18:2 (2012), pp. 345–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halliday, Fred, Revolution in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1999)Google Scholar; Hobden, Steve and Hobson, John M. (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Lacher, Hannes, Beyond Globalization: Capitalism, Territoriality and the International Relations of Modernity (London: Routledge, 2006)Google Scholar; Matin, Kamran, Recasting Iranian Modernity: International Relations and Social Change (London: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar; Lawson, George, Negotiated Revolutions (London: Routledge, 2004)Google Scholar; Morton, Adam David, Unravelling Gramsci: Hegemony and Passive Revolution in the Global Political Economy (London: Pluto Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenberg, Justin, The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations (London: Verso, 1994)Google Scholar; Teschke, Benno, The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso, 2003)Google Scholar; Zarakol, Ayse, After Defeat: How the East Learned to Live with the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Knafo, Sam, The Making of Modern Finance: Liberal Governance and the Gold Standard (Abington: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar; Lacher, Hannes and Germann, Julian, ‘Before hegemony: Britain, free trade, and nineteenth-century world order revisited’, International Studies Review, 14:1 (2012), pp. 99–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For example: Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Rosenberg, Justin, ‘Why is there no International Historical Sociology?’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:3 (2006), pp. 307–340 Google Scholar.

4 Hobson, John, Lawson, George, and Rosenberg, Justin, ‘Historical sociology’, LSE Research Online (2010), p. 4, available at: {www.eprints.lse.ac.uk/28016/1/Historical_sociology(LSERO.pdf} accessed 1 February 2016Google Scholar.

6 Hobson, John M., ‘What’s at stake in “bringing historical sociology back” into International Relations?’, in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson (eds), Historical Sociology of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002), pp. 3–41 Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Justin, ‘The “philosophical premises” of uneven and combined development’, Review of International Studies, 39:3 (2013), pp. 569–597 Google Scholar.

7 Anievas and Nisancioglu, How The West Came to Rule; Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity; Buzan, Barry and Lawson, George, The Global Transformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Tansel, Cemal Burak, ‘Defeaning silence?: Marxism, International Historical Sociology and the spectre of Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:1 (2015), pp. 76–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Prendergast, Christopher, ‘Codeword modernity’, New Left Review, 24 (2003), pp. 95–111 Google Scholar.

9 Buzan, Barry and Lawson, George, ‘Capitalism and the emergent world order’, International Affairs, 90:1 (2014), p. 71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matin, , Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 22 Google Scholar. In this article, I will use ‘modernity’ in a similar way, yet I will also try to concretise it by historicising and problematising its relation to capitalism.

10 Ruggie, John Gerard, ‘Territoriality and beyond’, International Organization, 47:1 (1993), pp. 139–174 Google Scholar; Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society; Teschke, The Myth of 1648; Lacher, Beyond Globalization.

11 Hobson, John M., The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Inayatullah, Naem and Blaney, David, International Relations and the Problem of Difference (New York: Routledge 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shilliam, Robbie, ‘The Atlantic as a vector of uneven and combined development’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22:1 (2009), pp. 69–88 Google Scholar.

12 Buzan and Lawson, The Global Transformation; Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity; Shilliam, Robbie, German Thought and International Relations: The Rise and Fall of a Liberal Project (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Shilliam, Robbie, ‘Modernity and modernization’, in Robert Denemark (ed.), The International Studies Encyclopedia: Volume VIII (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 5214–5232 Google Scholar.

14 cf. Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 2.

15 Eisenstadt, Samuel, ‘Multiple modernities’, Daedalus, 129 (2000), p. 15 Google Scholar.

16 Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp. 9–21, 70, 85 Google Scholar.

17 Buzan, and Lawson, , The Global Transformation, pp. 59–60, 330 Google Scholar; Matin, , Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 2 Google Scholar; Anievas, and Nisancioglu, , How The West Came to Rule, pp. 39–42 Google Scholar.

18 Anievas, and Nisancioglu, , How The West Came to Rule, p. 40 Google Scholar.

19 Halperin, Sandra, ‘International Relations theory and the hegemony of Western conceptions of hegemony’, in B. G. Jones (ed.), Decolonizing International Relations (Rowman Littlefield: Plymouth, 2006), p. 60 Google Scholar.

20 Matin, , ‘Redeeming the universal: Postcolonialism and the inner life of Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 19:2 (2013), p. 364 Google Scholar.

21 Anievas and Nisancioglu, How The West Came to Rule.

22 Ibid., p. 55

23 Ibid., pp. 52, 67, 72, 94, 117, emphasis added.

24 Ibid., p. 75.

25 Ibid., p. 55

26 Ibid., pp. 199–205.

27 Trotsky, Leon, quoted in Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 18 Google Scholar.

28 See, for example, Matin, , Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 19 Google Scholar; Anievas, and Nisancioglu, , How The West Came to Rule, p. 50 Google Scholar.

29 Hannes Lacher, ‘Polanyian Perspectives on Global History’ (unpublished paper, presented at Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, Germany, 2015); see also Shilliam, , German Thought and International Relations, p. 18 Google Scholar.

30 Lacher, ‘Polanyian Perspectives on Global History’.

31 Marx, Karl, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (London: Penguin, 1993), p. 471 Google Scholar.

32 Polanyi, Karl, The Great Transformation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957)Google Scholar.

33 Anievas, and Nisancioglu, , How The West Came to Rule, pp. 224, 249 Google Scholar.

34 Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Shilliam, , German Thought and International Relations, ch. 2 Google Scholar.

36 cf. Shilliam, , German Thought and International Relations, p. 201 Google Scholar; Shilliam, Robbie, ‘Jacobinism’, in Alison J. Ayers (ed.), Gramsci, Political Economy, and International Relations Theory: Modern Princes and Naked Emperors (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), p. 197 Google Scholar.

37 Shilliam, German Thought and International Relations; Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity; Lacher, ‘Polanyian Perspectives on Global History’.

38 Wood, Ellen Meiksins, The Origin of Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1999), pp. 176–177 Google Scholar.

39 Wood, Ellen Meiksins, ‘The question of market dependence’, Journal of Agrarian Change, 2:1 (2002), pp. 50–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Brenner, Robert, ‘Agrarian class structures and economic development’, in T. Aston and C. H. E. Philpin (eds), The Brenner Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985a), p. 20 Google Scholar. This is not to deny that states under capitalism continue to intervene into markets and implement policies to ‘protect’ their subjects as well as capital from the disruptive effects of markets, yet it should be kept in mind that even the most interventionist regimes do not aim ‘the complete eradication of labor as a commodity’ (Esping-Anderson, quoted in Lacher, Beyond Globalization, p. 143).

41 Robert Brenner, ‘The agrarian roots of European capitalism’, in Aston and Philpin (eds), The Brenner Debate, p. 322. See also Brenner, Robert, ‘The social bases of economic development’, in John Roemer (ed.), Analytical Marxism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 29 Google Scholar.

42 Teschke, The Myth of 1648; Lacher, Beyond Globalization.

43 Teschke, Benno, ‘Bourgeois revolution, state formation and the absence of the international’, Historical Materialism, 13:2 (2005), p. 21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Ibid., p. 13.

45 Teschke, Benno, ‘IR theory, historical materialism and the false promise of international historical sociology’, Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies, 6:1 (2015), pp. 34–36 Google Scholar.

46 See, for example, Matin, , Recasting Iranian Modernity, p. 53 Google Scholar; Anievas, and Nisancioglu, , How The West Came to Rule, p. 14 Google Scholar.

47 See, for example, Anievas and Nisancioglu, How The West Came to Rule.

48 The specific problem of the socioeconomic character of the French Revolution is debated in IR especially among Marxist scholars. For views that (explicitly or otherwise) emphasise the non-capitalist character of the revolution, see Lacher, Beyond Globalization; Teschke, The Myth of 1648; Shilliam, German Thought and International Relations; and Matin, Recasting Iranian Modernity. For a contrasting view, see Anievas and Nisancioglu, How The West Came to Rule.

49 Shilliam, German Thought and International Relations.

50 Ibid.

51 Comninel, George, Rethinking the French Revolution: Marxism and the Revisionist Challenge (London: Verso, 1987), p. 107 Google Scholar.

52 See also Matin, , Recasting Iranian Modernity, pp. 52–54 Google Scholar.

53 In contrast to France, Britain, with its capitalist economy and dispossessed ‘surplus’ population, could afford to ‘buy’ soldiers and improve its naval power without creating citizens. ‘More fundamental reforms were neither necessary nor desirable’ until 1914, see Mjøset, Lars and Van Holde, Stephen, ‘Killing for the state, dying for the nation’, in Lars Mjøset and Stephen Van Holde (eds), The Comparative Study of Conscription in the Armed Forces (New York: JAI Press, 2002), p. 34 Google Scholar.

54 Shilliam, , German Thought and International Relations, p. 21 Google Scholar.

55 Ibid., p. 46.

56 Ibid., p. 54.

57 Ibid., p. 55.

58 Ibid.

59 Salzmann, Ariel, Tocqueville in the Ottoman Empire: Rival Paths to the Modern State (Leiden: Brill, 2004)Google Scholar.

60 Hoffman, Clemens, ‘The Balkanization of Ottoman rule: Premodern origins of the modern international system in southeastern Europe’, Cooperation and Conflict, 43:4 (2008), p. 384 Google Scholar.

61 Hanioğlu, Şükrü, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire (Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press, 2010), p. 22 Google Scholar.

62 Kafadar, Cemal, ‘The question of Ottoman decline’, Harvard Middle East and Islamic Review, 4:1–2 (1997), p. 46 Google Scholar.

63 Göçek, Fatma Müge, Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 93–97 Google Scholar.

64 Hoffman, , ‘The Balkanization of Ottoman rule’, p. 386 Google Scholar; Aksan, Virginia, Ottoman Wars 1700–1870 (London: Longman/Pearson 2007), pp. 282–294 Google Scholar.

65 Hanioğlu, , A Brief History, p. 69 Google Scholar.

66 Fahmy, Khaled, ‘The era of Muhammad Ali Pasha’, in M. W. Daly and Carl F. Petry (eds), The Cambridge History of Egypt, Volume II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 163 Google Scholar.

67 Zurcher, Erik J., ‘The Ottoman conscription system in theory and practice’, in Erik Jan Zurcher (ed.), Arming the State: Military Conscription in the Middle East and Central Asia 1775–1925 (London: I. B. Tauris, 1999), pp. 80–81 Google Scholar.

68 See, for example, Keyder, Çağlar, State and Class in Turkey (London: Verso, 1987)Google Scholar; Pamuk, Şevket, The Ottoman Empire and European Capitalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

69 Pamuk, , The Ottoman Empire, p. 20 Google Scholar; Ortaylı, Ilber, İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınevi, 1998), pp. 99, 106–108 Google Scholar.

70 İslamoğlu, Huricihan, ‘A revaluation of the Ottoman land code of 1858’, in Roger Owen (ed.), New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2000), p. 29 Google Scholar.

71 After four decades of enforcing conscription, the number of military troops increased from 24,000 regular soldiers in 1837 to 120,000 in 1849 and up to 206,000 in 1877, with a reserve army of 500,000 soldiers (Donald Quataert, ‘Main problems of the economy during the Tanzimat period’, in Hakkı Dursun Yıldız (ed.), 150. Yılında Tanzimat (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1992), p. 218; Karpat, Kemal, ‘The transformation of the Ottoman state, 1789–1908’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 3:3 (1972), p. 278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Heinzelmann, Tobias, Cihaddan Vatan Savunmasına: Osmanlı Imparatorluğuʿnda Genel Askerlik Yükümlülüğü (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2009), pp. 108, 263–264 Google Scholar; Yıldız, Gültekin, Neferin adı yok: zorunlu askerliğe geçiş sürecinde Osmanlı Devleti’nde siyaset, ordu ve toplum (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2009), p. 150 Google Scholar.

73 Aytekin, Attila, ‘Peasant protest in the late Ottoman Empire’, International Review of Social History, 57:2 (2012), pp. 191–228 Google Scholar; Aytekin, Attila, ‘Tax revolts during the Tanzimat period and before the Young Turk Revolution’, Journal of Policy History, 25:3 (2013), pp. 315–318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Ortaylı, , İmparatorluğun, p. 120 Google Scholar.

75 Aksan, , Ottoman Wars, pp. 416–431 Google Scholar; Aytekin, , ‘Peasant protest’; Quataert, ‘The age of reforms’, in Suraiya Faroqhi (ed.), An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, Volume II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 877 Google Scholar.

76 Shaw, Stanford and Shaw, Ezel Kural, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 96 Google Scholar.

77 Güran, Tevfik, Osmanlı Tarımı (Istanbul: Eren Yayıncılık,1998), pp. 141–142 Google Scholar.

78 See, for example, Aytekin, Attila, ‘Agrarian relations, property and law’, Middle Eastern Studies, 45:6 (2009), pp. 935–951 Google Scholar.

79 Aksan, , Ottoman Wars, p. 437 Google Scholar.

80 Ibid., p. 478.

81 Üstel, Füsun, Makbul Vatandaşın peşinde (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınevi), pp. 26–27 Google Scholar.

82 Moreau, Odile, Reformlar Çağında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu: Yeni Düzen’in İnsanları ve Fikirleri 1826–1914 (Istanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayinlari, 2010), p. 17 Google Scholar.

83 Quataert, , ‘Main problems of the economy during the Tanzimat period’, pp. 214–215 Google Scholar; Quataert, , ‘The age of reforms’, pp. 878–879 Google Scholar.

84 Pamuk, , The Ottoman Empire, pp. 39, 68 Google Scholar.

85 İslamoğlu, , ‘A revaluation of the Ottoman Land Code’, pp. 33–34 Google Scholar.

86 Keyder, Çağlar, ‘The cycle of sharecropping and the consolidation of small peasant ownership in Turkey’, Journal of Peasant Studies, 10:2 (1983), p. 132 Google Scholar.

87 One indicator of this is that although there were massive inflows of foreign direct investment into land in western Anatolia following the Land Code of 1867 – according to an estimate one third of cultivable land belonged to the British in 1868 – foreign investment totally retreated in the subsequent decades because of labour power shortages, low effective demand, high wages and, above all, the reluctance of the Ottoman state to transform agrarian relations (Pamuk The Ottoman Empire, pp. 39, 68). Relatedly, almost all foreign investment funds went into infrastructure projects, which gave ‘quick, high or at least secure returns’, rather than flowing to production. Hershlag, Zvi Yehuda, Turkey: The Challenge of Growth (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 33 Google Scholar.

88 Pamuk, , The Ottoman Empire, p. 101 Google Scholar; Ortaylı, , İmparatorluğun, pp. 226–227 Google Scholar. Given peasants’ control over the labour process and ability to obtain and maintain land without having to systematically increase commodity production, productive forces remained primitive and domestic investment scarce. Quataert, ‘The age of reforms’, p. 853.

89 Mustafa Koç, ‘Persistence of Small Commodity Production in Agriculture: The Case of Tobacco Producers in Aegean Turkey’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto 1988), pp. 65–71. Relatedly, the Ottoman commercial boom was generated not by an ‘intensive’ growth underlined by a qualitative transformation of the peasants’ labour process and increasing dependence on the market, but by an ‘extensive’ growth based on peasant-squeezing on large estates, land-clearance and the expansion of the peasants’ traditional survival strategies alongside their limited and occasional engagement with the market. Quataert, ‘The age of reforms’, pp. 843, 864.

90 Çağlar Keyder, ‘Introduction: Large scale commercial agriculture in the Ottoman Empire?’, in Çağlar Keyder and Faruk Tabak (eds), Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), p. 12; Şevket Pamuk, ‘Agriculture and economic development in Turkey, 1870–2000’, in Pedro Lains and Vicente Pinilla (eds), Agriculture and Economic Development in Europe since 1870 (London: Routledge, 2008), p. 389; Quataert, ‘The age of reforms’, p. 864.

91 Mundy, Martha and Smith, Richard, Governing Property: Making the Modern State in Ottoman Syria (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007), p. 471 Google Scholar; İslamoğlu, , ‘A revaluation of the Ottoman Land Code’, pp. 33–39 Google Scholar.

92 Shaw, and Shaw, , History of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 155–156 Google Scholar.

93 Kayalı, Hasan, ‘Elections and the electoral process in the Ottoman Empire’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27:3 (1995), pp. 268–270 Google Scholar.

94 İslamoğlu, , ‘A revaluation of the Ottoman Land Code’, p. 40 Google Scholar.

95 Shaw, and Shaw, , History of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 191–195 Google Scholar.

96 Moreau, , Reformlar Çağında Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, pp. 26–27 Google Scholar.

97 Shaw, and Shaw, , History of the Ottoman Empire, pp. 100, 245–246 Google Scholar.

98 Shaw, and Shaw, , History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 115 Google Scholar; Pamuk, , The Ottoman Empire, p. 105 Google Scholar.

99 Beşikçi, Mehmet, The Ottoman Mobilization of Manpower in the First World War (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 172–175; Shaw, and Shaw, , History of the Ottoman Empire, p. 246 Google Scholar. The non-Muslim and at least one fourth of the Muslim population remained exempt in the second half of the nineteenth century, leaving some estimated twelve million Muslims available for conscription. And while in Bosnia, Albania, Syria and Iraq conscription attempts foundered due to rebellious populations, the heaviest burden of conscription fell on the population of Turkic Anatolia, which grew by more than two million refugees from 1850 to 1900 (Aksan Ottoman Wars, p. 479).

100 Pamuk, , The Ottoman Empire, p. 90 Google Scholar.

101 Ibid.

102 Quataert, , ‘The age of reforms’, pp. 871–872 Google Scholar.

103 Quataert, , ‘Main problems’, pp. 215–216 Google Scholar.

104 Ortaylı, , İmparatorluğun, pp. 208–209 Google Scholar; Ortaylı, Ilber, ‘Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nda sanayileşme anlayışına bir örnek: Islah–ı Sanayi Komisyonu olayı’, METU Studies in Development (1978), p. 125 Google Scholar.

105 Clark, Edward, ‘Osmanlı’da Sanayi Devrimi’, in Halil İnalcık and Mehmet Seyitdanlıoğlu (eds), Tanzimat (Istanbul: İş Bankası Yayınları, 2012), p. 769 Google Scholar.

106 Sohrabi, Nader, Revolution and Constitutionalism in the Ottoman Empire and Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011), pp. 62, 72–5, 77, 80–1, 90 Google Scholar.

107 Kansu, Aykut, 1908 Devrimi (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınevi, 1998)Google Scholar.

108 Toprak, Zafer, Türkiye’de ‘Millı̂ Iktisat’ (Istanbul: Yurt Yayınları 1982), pp. 23–24 Google Scholar.

109 Sohrabi, , Revolution and Constitutionalism, pp. 175–188 Google Scholar; Kayalı, Hasan, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), p. 59 Google Scholar.

110 Astourian, Stephan, ‘The silence of the land’, in Ronald Grigor Suny, Fatma Müge Göçek, and Norman Naimark (eds), A Question of Genocide: Armenians and Turks at the End of the Ottoman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 77–78 Google Scholar.

111 Çetinkaya, Doğan, The Young Turks and the Boycott Movement: Nationalism, Protest and the Working Classes in the Formation of Modern Turkey (London: I. B. Tauris, 2014), pp. 63, 73 Google Scholar; Sohrabi, , Revolution and Constitutionalism, p. 187 Google Scholar.

112 Beşikçi, , The Ottoman Mobilization, pp. 139–41, 172–173 Google Scholar.

113 Zurcher, , ‘The Ottoman conscription system’, p. 89 Google Scholar.

114 Fikret Adanır, ‘Non-Muslims in the Ottoman army’, in Suny, Göçek, and Naimark (eds), A Question of Genocide, pp. 120–3.

115 Greeks and Armenians were the primary victims of the Young Turk ‘Terror’. Estimates for the number of Greeks who were forced to leave the Aegean Region from 1913 to 1918 run between 200,000 to one million. Indeed, the ‘success’ of this initial deportation encouraged the Young Turks to implement the same policy on the Armenian community during the First World War, resulting in massive expulsions, massacres, and the almost complete annihilation of the Armenian presence in Anatolia. See Akçam, Taner, From Empire to Republic (New York: Zed Books, 2004), pp. 141–150 Google Scholar.

116 Ahmad, Feroz, İttihatçılıktan Kemalizme (Istanbul: Kaynak, 2009), pp. 78–80 Google Scholar.

117 Toprak, Zafer, İttihat Terakki ve Devletçilik (Istanbul: Tarih Vakfı, 1995), pp. 73, 139–142 Google Scholar; Ahmad, , İttihatçılıktan Kemalizme, p. 68 Google Scholar.

118 Toprak, Zafer, Türkiye’de Popülizm (Istanbul: Doğan Kitap, 2013), pp. 301–303 Google Scholar.

119 Eren Duzgun, ‘The international relations of “Bourgeois Revolution”’: Disputing the Turkish Revolution’, European Journal of International Relations, pre-published 7 April 2017 {doi. 10.1177/1354066117714527}.

120 Halliday, Fred, The Middle East in International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 7 Google Scholar.

121 See also Lawson, George and Hobson, John, ‘What is history in international relations?’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37:2 (2008), pp. 415–435 Google Scholar.

5 Ibid.